GOAL OF WORK: The goal of this work was to identify methods of clinician-patient cancer-related communication that may impact patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials on this topic was conducted. Guidelines for quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, and the contributive value for recommendations was assessed. Systematic reviews and randomized trials were also evaluated for methodological rigor. RESULTS: Four existing guidelines, eight systematic reviews and nine randomized trials were identified. Two of the guidelines were of high quality, and all systematic reviews reported clear search criteria and support for their conclusions; the randomized trials were of modest or low quality. For all situations and disease stages, guidelines consistently identified open, honest, and timely communication as important; specifically, there was evidence for a reduction in anxiety when discussions of life expectancy and prognosis were included in consultations. Techniques to increase patient participation in decision-making were associated with greater satisfaction but did not necessarily decrease distress. Few studies took cultural and religious diversity into account. CONCLUSIONS: There is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.
GOAL OF WORK: The goal of this work was to identify methods of clinician-patientcancer-related communication that may impact patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials on this topic was conducted. Guidelines for quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, and the contributive value for recommendations was assessed. Systematic reviews and randomized trials were also evaluated for methodological rigor. RESULTS: Four existing guidelines, eight systematic reviews and nine randomized trials were identified. Two of the guidelines were of high quality, and all systematic reviews reported clear search criteria and support for their conclusions; the randomized trials were of modest or low quality. For all situations and disease stages, guidelines consistently identified open, honest, and timely communication as important; specifically, there was evidence for a reduction in anxiety when discussions of life expectancy and prognosis were included in consultations. Techniques to increase patient participation in decision-making were associated with greater satisfaction but did not necessarily decrease distress. Few studies took cultural and religious diversity into account. CONCLUSIONS: There is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.
Authors: Josephine M Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; Martin H N Tattersall; Rhonda J Devine; Judy M Simpson; Ghauri Aggarwal; Katherine J Clark; David C Currow; Louise M Elliott; Judith Lacey; Philip G Lee; Michael A Noel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Phyllis Butow; Rhonda Devine; Michael Boyer; Susan Pendlebury; Michael Jackson; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rhonda F Brown; Phyllis N Butow; Merin Anne Sharrock; Michael Henman; Fran Boyle; David Goldstein; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Health Expect Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Violet D'Souza; Maiziel Serrao; Erin Watson; Elizabeth Blouin; Anthony Zeitouni; Paul J Allison Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Marie C Haverfield; Aaron Tierney; Rachel Schwartz; Michelle B Bass; Cati Brown-Johnson; Dani L Zionts; Nadia Safaeinili; Meredith Fischer; Jonathan G Shaw; Sonoo Thadaney; Gabriella Piccininni; Karl A Lorenz; Steven M Asch; Abraham Verghese; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gary Rodin; Dora Yuen; Ashley Mischitelle; Mark D Minden; Joseph Brandwein; Aaron Schimmer; Charles Marmar; Lucia Gagliese; Christopher Lo; Anne Rydall; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 3.894